It is clear from plethora of authorities where after considering provisions of section 1l(l)(a) that so for as aforesaid provision is concerned, no distinction is made between charitable and religious purposes. A charitable institution can have religious purposes; whereas a religious institution may be partly charitable. Most of the decisions were given under 1961 Act.
When a part of the surrender can be accepted on proper explanation the rest can also be allowed to be explained. The assessee’s claim that balance was from cash withdrawals from cash book has to be tested on the facts appearing in the case. For that test it would be necessary that cash book be examined. Both members agree to that effect – the Accountant Member stating that if cash is found withdrawn it should be excepted whereas the Judicial Member directs to verify as to how the cash was generated in the cash book. In my opinion the later course appear to be more reasonable as the cash availability is to be examined with reference to entries made therein.
he assessee, a civil contractor, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA (4) in respect of the profits from infrastructure projects executed by it. The lower authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was a mere contractor and not a developer. On appeal, the Judicial Member upheld the claim on the ground that the assessee was a developer. The Accountant Member dissented and after taking note of the Explanation to s. 80-IA then proposed to be inserted by the Finance Bill 2007 w.r.e.f 1.4.2000, rejected the claim.
The assessee transferred a capital asset which was received by her by way of gift on 1.2.2003. The previous owner had acquired the capital asset on 29.1.1993. In computing capital gains, the assessee claimed that the indexed cost of acquisition had to be worked out by taking the date of acquisition by the previous owner.
SRF Ltd. v. DCIT, (ITAT Delhi) In the present case it is seen that the liability was discharged by way of issuance of shares. When the assessee issues shares the assessee does not incur any expenditure as the assessee is not to make any payment legally towards shares issued. The shares cannot be equated with debentures, which is purely by way of loan and the same are required to be repaid on maturity.
Before answering the first question viz., as to whether the interest income of the assessee received from its corporate members on the investments of surplus funds as Fixed Deposits or Debentures etc., is exempted from tax on the concept of Mutuality, it will be worthwhile to refer to the principles laid down on the Doctrine of Mutuality in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as some of the High Courts.
However, in the impugned case there is no material on record to suggest or to hold that any sincere attempt was made by the Revenue to make the service through normal mode. For the reasons discussed above, the decision in the case of Jagannath Prasad & Ors. Vs. CIT (supra) will have square application to the present case and relying on the decision in the case of M/s Ganeshi Lai & Sons (supra), it cannot be held that service of notice by affixture in the present case was a valid service.
An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in the case of an appeal made, on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, irrespective of the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings relating thereto, be accompanied by a fee of,
As a consequence of the amendments introduced by the 2007 Act, an application which abates for no fault of the applicant would, under section 245HA(2) revert back to the IT Authorities as if no application had, in the first place, been made under section 245C to the Settlement Commission. As inserted by the 2007 Act, Section 245HA(3) of the Act further provides that where an application so reverts to the IT Authorities upon abatement,
The assessee, a partner in a firm, received ‘share of profit’ and ‘salary’ from the firm. While the ‘share of profit’ was exempt u/s 10(2A), the ‘salary’ was taxable as business income u/s 28 (v). The assessee claimed deduction for business expenditure incurred by him. The AO held that as the assessee had exempt income, s. 14A applied and a part of the expenditure had to be disallowed.
